generate_fishbone_diagram

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the tool's output (a visual chart/diagram) and the conceptual framework of fishbone analysis, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, potential limitations, or what exactly gets generated (e.g., image file, HTML, etc.).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence explains what the tool does and its visual structure, while the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place by adding value. It could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall it's efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (hierarchical data structure, multiple styling options) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides good context about what gets generated and when to use it. The annotations cover the safety aspect (readOnlyHint=true). The main gap is the lack of information about the output format (e.g., image type, embedding options), which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the hierarchical structure concept but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a fishbone diagram chart' with specific details about its structure (fish skeleton, problem as head, causes/effects as bones) and suitable use cases (problems with multiple related factors). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling chart-generation tools by focusing on the unique fishbone diagram format.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'It suits problems that can be split into multiple related factors.' This gives practical guidance about appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.